Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
PerchMan's picture
PerchMan
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/5/02
Measure 2

 Just wondering what opinion everyone has on this measure.  It can sound good from both points of views, and it can sound bad from both points of views.  Your thoughts?

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

To me it just moves taxes from one person to another and gives non-resident property owners a $162 million dollar tax break.  Sorry, but my vote isn't going to be to give police, fire, and all the other protections/services to these non-residents for free.  I also believe local city/county governments are a lot more cost concious when their decisions come out of our local pockets instead of it being money handed down to them from the state or some other level.  Just look at how many spend any federal money they get.  They often buy things because the money's available and not necessarily because they TRULY need it.  I'm sure local income or sales taxes could fill that void, but that's just changing the payer and I'm still not willing to let non-resident property owners off the hook.  Too much of our property is already owned by non-residents.  No reason to make it even more lucrative for them.

I do hope this is a wake up call though and our state leaders do a better job of addressing school and roads costs. 

walleyes n whitetails's picture
walleyes n whit...
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/03

Vote No!

If you vote no for only one reason do it for the public schools.  Property tax is where they get most of their money.  If they lose that, grab your popcorn and watch education go down the toilet.

Just Say No!


Liebel's Guide Service 

Fishing on North Dakota's Beautiful Lake Sakakawea!

ndbwhunter's picture
ndbwhunter
Offline
Joined: 2/23/05
Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

walleyes n whitetails Said:
Vote No!

If you vote no for only one reason do it for the public schools.  Property tax is where they get most of their money.  If they lose that, grab your popcorn and watch education go down the toilet.

Just Say No!

When has ND ever had a poor public education system?  What specific details can you give as proof of your statement?

I'll tell you the biggest trouble/challenge the education system is going to have regarding this measure is things like the Fargo School Board being able to build new schools without a vote.  That's 80,000-90,000 people receiving taxation without representation.  I don't think giving up local control is the best choice but there are literally THOUSANDS of folks looking for any way to stick it to the Fargo School Board after the 3rd high school deal.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



walleyes n whitetails's picture
walleyes n whit...
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/03

I never said ND had a poor education system.  If they lose their funding schools will be in big trouble.  I have no idea what has gone on in fargo.  But i can tell you williston would love to be able just build new schools right now.

http://keepitlocalnd.com/
The pie graph on the homepage(Source: Office of State Tax Commisioner) shows that 45.1% of property taxes go towards education


Liebel's Guide Service 

Fishing on North Dakota's Beautiful Lake Sakakawea!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Read the thread posted above in its entirety and get back to us.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Stizostedion vitreum's picture
Stizostedion vitreum
Offline
Joined: 12/17/01

All I can say is that if it is passed we will not know if it works until a decade has passed. When you take a piece of the puzzle out and throw it away the big picture has to reorganize and that can take time. It can be done but it will be not without struggle and pain. The transition period is going to be full of negatives before we get things organized and well oiled. The opposition is going to use that to their advantage to say "We told you so." With any major change there will be struggle. Eventually the government and the people will develope a fair and proper method of taxation. All of us wish to own property some day. The problem with owning property is tjat if the property does not generate income, the property owned turns into a sort of "rental" which has no renter. The government demands "rent" from the owner...and if it cannot be paid, the owner is evicted even though he or she worked their entire life to pay it off and own it outright.

I

What we do in life echoes for eternity.   Shadows and dust.

Pheasant 54's picture
Pheasant 54
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/8/07

The last legislature goofed up not giving us 20-50% credit on our state income taxes for our property taxes that were paid ,

To totally do away with them is a big mistake, it is going to be a close vote but I sure hope does not pass , but then the upcoming legislature needs to do something , cause if not it wll be brought up again and probably will pass the second time

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

walleyes n whitetails Said:
  I have no idea what has gone on in fargo.  But i can tell you williston would love to be able just build new schools right now.

The teachers and administrators would love a new school or the residents who'll actually be paying for it?

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

I now will be voting yes on this measure.  I just read that the state intends to increase property taxes another 7.5% or so.  They are also planning on increasing land taxes another 32% I believe.  The legislature obviously has no intentions of reducing property taxes.  Everybody I talk to that has made up their minds is voting for this measure.  I am now educating those that are undecided.  When I explain the issue and how our taxes are going to be raised again, the individuals I talk with become angry.  I believe by Nov. this measure will pass easily.  I didn't think this two months ago.  And this will not effect the amount of money the local schools will receive one iota.  nor will it effect what local and county governments will receive.  all it does is change the source of the funding.  the state is receving 4-5 million $ per day from the oil revenues.  they have chosen to not spend that money on infrastructure in western ND.  they say they are but there is absolutely nothing happening over here.  So I will be sticking up a huge "Vote yes on measure 2" sign on my property which is right on U.S. 85.  I have had it with the state government. 

 

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

Horsager Said:
 
walleyes n whitetails Said:
  I have no idea what has gone on in fargo.  But i can tell you williston would love to be able just build new schools right now.

The teachers and administrators would love a new school or the residents who'll actually be paying for it?

I'm guessing anyone who has or knows the kids and teachers that are using mobile units parked outside the school as classrooms would like a new school that can support the population of students. 

I think this one is apples and oranges Horsager. Also, last I checked school board members are voted into their seats. Not that it helps anyone in Fargo do anything about it there are people to be held accountable. 

To the OP I stand firmly on the Vote NO side of the line. I would rather know specifically what funds will replace the loss of property taxes rather than roll the dice and see how it plays out. Hopefully this will kickstart the legislature to address our property taxes. 

J

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

eyexer Said:
I now will be voting yes on this measure.  I just read that the state intends to increase property taxes another 7.5% or so.  They are also planning on increasing land taxes another 32% I believe.  The legislature obviously has no intentions of reducing property taxes.  Everybody I talk to that has made up their minds is voting for this measure.  I am now educating those that are undecided.  When I explain the issue and how our taxes are going to be raised again, the individuals I talk with become angry.  I believe by Nov. this measure will pass easily.  I didn't think this two months ago.  And this will not effect the amount of money the local schools will receive one iota.  nor will it effect what local and county governments will receive.  all it does is change the source of the funding.  the state is receving 4-5 million $ per day from the oil revenues.  they have chosen to not spend that money on infrastructure in western ND.  they say they are but there is absolutely nothing happening over here.  So I will be sticking up a huge "Vote yes on measure 2" sign on my property which is right on U.S. 85.  I have had it with the state government. 

Source?

J

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

Where did you read that eye? Article please.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

fire angel's picture
fire angel
Offline
Joined: 7/15/03

 

eyexer Said:
I now will be voting yes on this measure.  I just read that the state intends to increase property taxes another 7.5% or so.  They are also planning on increasing land taxes another 32% I believe.  The legislature obviously has no intentions of reducing property taxes.  Everybody I talk to that has made up their minds is voting for this measure.  I am now educating those that are undecided.  When I explain the issue and how our taxes are going to be raised again, the individuals I talk with become angry.  I believe by Nov. this measure will pass easily.  I didn't think this two months ago.  And this will not effect the amount of money the local schools will receive one iota.  nor will it effect what local and county governments will receive.  all it does is change the source of the funding.  the state is receving 4-5 million $ per day from the oil revenues.  they have chosen to not spend that money on infrastructure in western ND.  they say they are but there is absolutely nothing happening over here.  So I will be sticking up a huge "Vote yes on measure 2" sign on my property which is right on U.S. 85.  I have had it with the state government. 

Yet you want to give them all of the financial power throughout the state, to decide the funding for every school and for every town or city.

diamondguy81's picture
diamondguy81
Offline
Joined: 9/20/06

Measure #2 is severely flawed as written. I am absolutely for a reduction in property tax, but it has to be done in a responsible manner. Two things that are wrong with the measure are: (I'm sure there are more.)

1). If property taxes are completely eliminated, the revenue to fund state/county/local government and services would have to be replaced elsewhere. Would you rather pay higher sales or income taxes? Maybe the state would enact a personal property tax similar to what Montana has. 

2) In order to be guaranteed their funding, every city, county, township, park board, school board, etc. would have to become lobbyists to the state legislature. Since we have a part time legislature, the entire allocated session would be spent in committee hearing requests for funding and there wouldn't be time to act on any other legislative issues.  The only way this would work would be longer and more frequent sessions. This would grow government and require more funding to keep it running, therefore needing to increase revenue (taxes) in other areas to make up the shortfall.

The best thing that could happen is that Measure #2 goes down to defeat.  But, that we the citizens and property owners of ND put pressure on our state legislators to revamp to property tax system providing relief for property owners but ensuring that tax revenues remain at sufficient levels to maintain the funding needed.  Since property values keep rising 10-12% per year in central and western North Dakota, property taxes keep going up and up based on the assessed values.  It is absolutely ridiculous that there is so much money in surplus when there are so many needs throughout the state for infrastructure, emergency services, road repairs, flood control, etc. etc. etc.

kdm's picture
kdm
Offline
Joined: 9/5/08

To me it's a generational difference for the most part.  The older generation whose kids already graduated, they've paid off the house, the cars, and have a steady (though somewhat reduced) income would benefit from a "Yes" vote as would those who've paid off debt in a timely fashion.  If you own your property, of any kind, then an increase in income tax shouldn't put a significant burden on the family unit.  Conversely, if you live paycheck to paycheck, have kids in school, are in significant debt of several flavors with a myriad of payments to the bank, then a "No" vote would prevent an increase in income tax and help keep the family unit on track.  It all depends on your personal financial situation.   Arguing over which is the best will accomplish very little other than maybe some stress relief.  At this point, I believe the "over 50" part of the population outnumbers the "under 50".  We shall see which group hits the ballot box the hardest.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

welll..... it was said a hundred different times in a dozen different ways on the other thread.  but, there is a whole slough of ways local municipalities could raise the money w/o having to tax my property and make me a property renter.  i won't take the time to give examples again.  but, there would be absolutely no need for local townships, counties, cities, etc... to go begging for money from the state or to let the state control anything.  they would simply need to find another way to raise X amount of dollars.  and i gave dozens of examples in the thread posted above.  people are using scare tactics and overcomplicating this issue.  open your mind... there is absolutely no valid reason why i should have to pay rent to the government to continue to own my home.  especially when you consider that the large part of that rent goes towards putting someone elses kids thru school. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Stizostedion vitreum Said:
All I can say is that if it is passed we will not know if it works until a decade has passed. When you take a piece of the puzzle out and throw it away the big picture has to reorganize and that can take time. It can be done but it will be not without struggle and pain. The transition period is going to be full of negatives before we get things organized and well oiled. The opposition is going to use that to their advantage to say "We told you so." With any major change there will be struggle. Eventually the government and the people will develope a fair and proper method of taxation. All of us wish to own property some day. The problem with owning property is tjat if the property does not generate income, the property owned turns into a sort of "rental" which has no renter. The government demands "rent" from the owner...and if it cannot be paid, the owner is evicted even though he or she worked their entire life to pay it off and own it outright.

I

Those who are to poor to pay property taxes do get exempted from paying them. If one is actually that restricted and unable to pay, the taxes get waved.

I think the property taxes should be reduced significantly, however not gotten rid of. They could also be eliminated for people who are retired who are no longer paying income taxes.

Neat

wookie_man1's picture
wookie_man1
Offline
Joined: 11/17/06

walleyes n whitetails Said:
Vote No!

If you vote no for only one reason do it for the public schools.  Property tax is where they get most of their money.  If they lose that, grab your popcorn and watch education go down the toilet.

Just Say No!

And what if you send your kids to private school? 

 

mills's picture
mills
Offline
Joined: 1/17/04

diamondguy81 Said:

Measure #2 is severely flawed as written. I am absolutely for a reduction in property tax, but it has to be done in a responsible manner. Two things that are wrong with the measure are: (I'm sure there are more.)

1). If property taxes are completely eliminated, the revenue to fund state/county/local government and services would have to be replaced elsewhere. Would you rather pay higher sales or income taxes? Maybe the state would enact a personal property tax similar to what Montana has. 

2) In order to be guaranteed their funding, every city, county, township, park board, school board, etc. would have to become lobbyists to the state legislature. Since we have a part time legislature, the entire allocated session would be spent in committee hearing requests for funding and there wouldn't be time to act on any other legislative issues.  The only way this would work would be longer and more frequent sessions. This would grow government and require more funding to keep it running, therefore needing to increase revenue (taxes) in other areas to make up the shortfall.

The best thing that could happen is that Measure #2 goes down to defeat.  But, that we the citizens and property owners of ND put pressure on our state legislators to revamp to property tax system providing relief for property owners but ensuring that tax revenues remain at sufficient levels to maintain the funding needed.  Since property values keep rising 10-12% per year in central and western North Dakota, property taxes keep going up and up based on the assessed values.  It is absolutely ridiculous that there is so much money in surplus when there are so many needs throughout the state for infrastructure, emergency services, road repairs, flood control, etc. etc. etc.

That's exactly what it will end up being.  Year round, full time legislature.  You vote for my project and I'll vote for yours.  You give me x amount of $ and I'll make sure you get your $$.  So much for less government..............

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

since nobody is going to bother to read the above thread where some of your concerns were addressed, i will start responding here.

john... can you show us where you got your info about low income folks being exempted from property taxes? 

i don't see any reason at all why local governments have to hand over control to the state.  first of all... that is already going on.  everyone realizes that local property taxes and how they are spent currently have to be approved by the state don't they? 

i can give dozens of examples of how local governments can raise the same money some other place and not have to get approval from the state for how they raise the money or how they spend it.

if local governments chose to hand over power to the state to raise the money, there isn't any reason that the state legislature would have to meet anymore than they already do.  lets say the state raises money some other way or just uses oil money... local governments wouldn't have to submit budget proposals, etc.... to be reviewed by the legislature.  there could be some pretty simple formulas for how that money would be dispersed... local governments get $X for schools based on the # of school age children in the district, $X number of dollars based on miles of gravel roads, $X based on miles of 2 lane paved roads, $X based on miles of four lane roads, etc... see where i am coming from... doesn't have to be too complicated.  sure there could be requests for special projects that would be evaluated and voted on in separate bills... but, that is how that process works already. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

and under the above scenario... even if the local governments hand over power to the state... i don't see why they couldn't supplement the state dispersement w/ their own form of fund raising.  the ONLY thing that would have to change here is how the money is raised.  sure it would have to be replaced with new taxes and fees.  but, it would be replaced with taxes and fees that don't make me a property owner subject to whether or not i pay rent on the value of that property to the state. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

z's picture
z
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/3/07

I will vote yes on this measure. Not because it is a great idea, but more a step in the right direction.  Property taxes should be based on valuation, location and services provided.
((IE, schools, fire, medical, drainage, water, sewer.)  As it is now, the system is more geared towards use of the property.  That is a owners decision.  I still believe sales tax
(with no exemptions) is the only way to tax fairly.  I do know that the value of a viable fire/ambulance service is worth far more if it is within one mile vs 25-50 miles away.
I do believe that this measure is going to cause some serious sore spots.   Dying communities have to realize that school consolidation is a thing that has come and start planning for that.  New school buildings in areas of steadily declining enrollment should be view with a microscope.

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

Everyone should vote YES on Measure 2. I urge you to read the measure and it's supporting documents. First it must be understood - Measure 2 is a constitutional measure. That sets the rules for the state. The new rules are simple - you can no longer tax property - and the revenues MUST be replaced with other sources fully and properly. Period. That's what it means. All state laws must conform to this. What property tax is paying for now is in existing "law" - these are called "mills". The state can afford this, as Ed Schafer has stated publicly more than once without raising any taxes. This is about owning your home permanently - does anyone think it's right to have your home leveraged by your government? That's called feudalism. You pay rent to the king to live on his property. The king is now government. Seriously - I can't find a legitimate argument against Measure 2. Only fear-mongering by those who are currently abusing the tax. Special interest groups - they are lining up and screaming the sun won't rise tomorrow if it passes. 680 lots were siezed by your government last year - with 8 individuals/families losing there home. How many is ok with you? How many actually know the legislature has tried to "tweak" property tax over 130 times - and people are still losing their homes - some people are paying more in tax than they paid in mortgage payments. Get the facts - support the measure.  yesm2.com

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

Absolutely false and completely misleading. The only thing the legislators are required to do is set a formula that fully and properly replaces property tax. How do you think k-12 is funded now? Whether it be in Minot or Page ND - they have a formula devised by the legislators that funds it "fully and properly" according to existing state requirements. Not a single legislator has been involved with the local school districts "budgets" - again this idea that you'll go "full time" legislation is complete BS and just another scare tactic. There are two county commissioners and a legislator as sponsors of the measure. Once the formula is devised - the legislators are pretty much done. The money goes to the sub-divisions and the locals spend it without strings. They don't have that control now. Everything regarding property tax is a scam. The state mandates all mills, all evaluation formulas (there's that "formula" again) all values of Ag land - there is a State Property Tax department - if there is "local" control over property tax - why is there a state department exactly? Don't buy the garbage. Ask yourself who stands to gain and lose the most? The citizens stand to gain and the special interests stand to lose. Roughly $800 million is going to go from the government economy into the private economy. There is not a single argument that holds water for voting against Measure 2. It's either you own your home - or you continue to get abused by special interests. Just as the measure is very well written (and the opposition knows this and playing you for fools) and is common sense - so is the actual real debate. It's you or special interests. It's that easy.

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

That is not accurate - you have a state granted "grace period" - if you fail to meet the demands of the King - in the allotted time frame - YOU LOSE YOUR HOME TO SHERIFF SALE. This is special interest vs. the taxpayer. Put people first. Yes on Measure 2! Get the facts - not the disinformation!

walleyes n whitetails's picture
walleyes n whit...
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/03

Tackle Joe Said:
Absolutely false and completely misleading. The only thing the legislators are required to do is set a formula that fully and properly replaces property tax. How do you think k-12 is funded now? Whether it be in Minot or Page ND - they have a formula devised by the legislators that funds it "fully and properly" according to existing state requirements. Not a single legislator has been involved with the local school districts "budgets"

Schools funded "fully and properly?"  Tell me where that is happening in western ND right now?  The state has a cap on the annual oil impact funding right now, and that cap hasn't been changed in many years.  Schools are packed here in western ND, and need funding.  The state did kick in some grants in the past weeks to help, but schools out west  will still struggle next year. 

Show me something that will tell me how schools will get funded if measure 2 passes.


Liebel's Guide Service 

Fishing on North Dakota's Beautiful Lake Sakakawea!

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:
I now will be voting yes on this measure.  I just read that the state intends to increase property taxes another 7.5% or so.  They are also planning on increasing land taxes another 32% I believe.  The legislature obviously has no intentions of reducing property taxes.  Everybody I talk to that has made up their minds is voting for this measure.  I am now educating those that are undecided.  When I explain the issue and how our taxes are going to be raised again, the individuals I talk with become angry.  I believe by Nov. this measure will pass easily.  I didn't think this two months ago.  And this will not effect the amount of money the local schools will receive one iota.  nor will it effect what local and county governments will receive.  all it does is change the source of the funding.  the state is receving 4-5 million $ per day from the oil revenues.  they have chosen to not spend that money on infrastructure in western ND.  they say they are but there is absolutely nothing happening over here.  So I will be sticking up a huge "Vote yes on measure 2" sign on my property which is right on U.S. 85.  I have had it with the state government. 

Source?

a write up in the Williston Herald.

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

iluvswnd Said:
 

Horsager Said:
 
walleyes n whitetails Said:
  I have no idea what has gone on in fargo.  But i can tell you williston would love to be able just build new schools right now.

The teachers and administrators would love a new school or the residents who'll actually be paying for it?

I'm guessing anyone who has or knows the kids and teachers that are using mobile units parked outside the school as classrooms would like a new school that can support the population of students. 

I think this one is apples and oranges Horsager. Also, last I checked school board members are voted into their seats. Not that it helps anyone in Fargo do anything about it there are people to be held accountable. 

To the OP I stand firmly on the Vote NO side of the line. I would rather know specifically what funds will replace the loss of property taxes rather than roll the dice and see how it plays out. Hopefully this will kickstart the legislature to address our property taxes. 

you just brought up a very interesting point.  there are schools using portables right now.  so obviously the system in place does not work.  all the more reasons to vote yes on this measure.  at least it can't be any worse than it is now. 

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

diamondguy81 Said:

Measure #2 is severely flawed as written. I am absolutely for a reduction in property tax, but it has to be done in a responsible manner. Two things that are wrong with the measure are: (I'm sure there are more.)

1). If property taxes are completely eliminated, the revenue to fund state/county/local government and services would have to be replaced elsewhere. Would you rather pay higher sales or income taxes? Maybe the state would enact a personal property tax similar to what Montana has. 

2) In order to be guaranteed their funding, every city, county, township, park board, school board, etc. would have to become lobbyists to the state legislature. Since we have a part time legislature, the entire allocated session would be spent in committee hearing requests for funding and there wouldn't be time to act on any other legislative issues.  The only way this would work would be longer and more frequent sessions. This would grow government and require more funding to keep it running, therefore needing to increase revenue (taxes) in other areas to make up the shortfall.

The best thing that could happen is that Measure #2 goes down to defeat.  But, that we the citizens and property owners of ND put pressure on our state legislators to revamp to property tax system providing relief for property owners but ensuring that tax revenues remain at sufficient levels to maintain the funding needed.  Since property values keep rising 10-12% per year in central and western North Dakota, property taxes keep going up and up based on the assessed values.  It is absolutely ridiculous that there is so much money in surplus when there are so many needs throughout the state for infrastructure, emergency services, road repairs, flood control, etc. etc. etc.

but that's the problem.  there no discussion of lowering property taxes, only raising them even more.  so given that I believe the measure is sure to pass

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

walleyes n whitetails Said:

Tackle Joe Said:
Absolutely false and completely misleading. The only thing the legislators are required to do is set a formula that fully and properly replaces property tax. How do you think k-12 is funded now? Whether it be in Minot or Page ND - they have a formula devised by the legislators that funds it "fully and properly" according to existing state requirements. Not a single legislator has been involved with the local school districts "budgets"

Schools funded "fully and properly?"  Tell me where that is happening in western ND right now?  The state has a cap on the annual oil impact funding right now, and that cap hasn't been changed in many years.  Schools are packed here in western ND, and need funding.  The state did kick in some grants in the past weeks to help, but schools out west  will still struggle next year. 

Show me something that will tell me how schools will get funded if measure 2 passes.

exactly, it's not being done now.  so all the more reason to pass measure 2 so that it becomes law that it will have to be done.  then if it isn't the legal system will ensure that it does.  For gods sakes people we have a multi billion dollar surplus in this state that is growing by leaps and bounds on an annual basis.  yet the state taxes the living crap out of property owners.  it's azzinine.

 

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:
I now will be voting yes on this measure.  I just read that the state intends to increase property taxes another 7.5% or so.  They are also planning on increasing land taxes another 32% I believe.  The legislature obviously has no intentions of reducing property taxes.  Everybody I talk to that has made up their minds is voting for this measure.  I am now educating those that are undecided.  When I explain the issue and how our taxes are going to be raised again, the individuals I talk with become angry.  I believe by Nov. this measure will pass easily.  I didn't think this two months ago.  And this will not effect the amount of money the local schools will receive one iota.  nor will it effect what local and county governments will receive.  all it does is change the source of the funding.  the state is receving 4-5 million $ per day from the oil revenues.  they have chosen to not spend that money on infrastructure in western ND.  they say they are but there is absolutely nothing happening over here.  So I will be sticking up a huge "Vote yes on measure 2" sign on my property which is right on U.S. 85.  I have had it with the state government. 

Source?

a write up in the Williston Herald.

I can't find it on their website. Have a link by chance?

J

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Horsager Said:
 
walleyes n whitetails Said:
  I have no idea what has gone on in fargo.  But i can tell you williston would love to be able just build new schools right now.

The teachers and administrators would love a new school or the residents who'll actually be paying for it?

I'm guessing anyone who has or knows the kids and teachers that are using mobile units parked outside the school as classrooms would like a new school that can support the population of students. 

I think this one is apples and oranges Horsager. Also, last I checked school board members are voted into their seats. Not that it helps anyone in Fargo do anything about it there are people to be held accountable. 

To the OP I stand firmly on the Vote NO side of the line. I would rather know specifically what funds will replace the loss of property taxes rather than roll the dice and see how it plays out. Hopefully this will kickstart the legislature to address our property taxes. 

you just brought up a very interesting point.  there are schools using portables right now.  so obviously the system in place does not work.  all the more reasons to vote yes on this measure.  at least it can't be any worse than it is now. 

Post Hoc.... 

J

greenhead's picture
greenhead
Offline
Joined: 7/19/02

Eyexer, I can't find it either on their website either. I did a seach on property tax. I am curious as well so please post a link to the article. I also would like to hear your response to fireangels question. As that is my biggest concern and why I will be voting No.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

This measure is one of simple minds creating simple ideas.  The bottom line in all of this is that the property owners who don't live in ND won't have to pay a dime for the infrastructure supporting that property if this measure passes.  The number I read one time suggested that about 15% of all property in ND is owned by NR's.  Feel free to give them a free pass to buy up more of ND if you wish, but I am voting no because I don't particularly want an increase in my sales, income, or XXXX taxes to the tune of 15%. 

It takes a pretty good set of blinders to not recognize that the way you cut spending is to sit down and figure out which oxen needs to be gored.  That's the real answer, figure out whose pet projects need to go away first.

Does it really matter if I pay $10k a year in taxes to support ND if it is in the form of property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes?  I guess what a person calls it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

eyexer Said:
you just brought up a very interesting point.  there are schools using portables right now.  so obviously the system in place does not work.  all the more reasons to vote yes on this measure.  at least it can't be any worse than it is now. 

I think you are incorrect, the system IS working.  Those communities have decided to NOT build new schools, at least partially because of the effect it would have on property taxes.  So they don't care if their kids are going to school in a mobile home.  This passes, I can just about imagine that every school district will start dreaming about how to get "state" monies to build a new classroom, why not...it won't be reflected in their local taxes!

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

walleyes n whitetails Said:

Tackle Joe Said:
Absolutely false and completely misleading. The only thing the legislators are required to do is set a formula that fully and properly replaces property tax. How do you think k-12 is funded now? Whether it be in Minot or Page ND - they have a formula devised by the legislators that funds it "fully and properly" according to existing state requirements. Not a single legislator has been involved with the local school districts "budgets"

Schools funded "fully and properly?"  Tell me where that is happening in western ND right now?  The state has a cap on the annual oil impact funding right now, and that cap hasn't been changed in many years.  Schools are packed here in western ND, and need funding.  The state did kick in some grants in the past weeks to help, but schools out west  will still struggle next year. 

Show me something that will tell me how schools will get funded if measure 2 passes.

The state is to fund k-12 on average to 70% (2009 forward). This is up from 35%. This is from the general fund. That doesn't go away after measure 2 passes. Measure 2 requires the other 30% (current property tax amount) to be replace from the general fund as well. The measure requires payment to K-12 and local government legal obligations - in that order - to be paid for properly and fully before any other spending can occur. This is why everyone involved in the "special interests" is going bezerk - as the Measure Constitutionally requires the payment - fully and properly first. The legislatures only task is developing the "formula". Look at your current property tax bill - that breaks down everything regarding your tax bill - it's the "formula" designed by the legislature. The "mills" are what has been determined by the state to fund fully and properly - for that "legal obligation".  The mill is a legal obligation. Regarding your question - the state has a funding formula for k-12 in place - which includes the mills from the "local" tax - again that property tax goes away and must be replaced. Passage of Measure 2 doesn't change that k-12 formula - it simply replaces the 30% - nor does it restrict the legislature from improving the formula - nor does it restrict the state from any additional funding if they choose. However, Measure 2 requires it be fully and properly funded followed by local legal obligations (town, city county, township)  before any spending for special interest - that's the real issue. Actually paying your taxes and receiving the services you actually pay for - not special interest. Does this help? See www.yesm2.com and read the ABC's. That's the measures guts right there - and yes - it's that easy.

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
you just brought up a very interesting point.  there are schools using portables right now.  so obviously the system in place does not work.  all the more reasons to vote yes on this measure.  at least it can't be any worse than it is now. 

I think you are incorrect, the system IS working.  Those communities have decided to NOT build new schools, at least partially because of the effect it would have on property taxes.  So they don't care if their kids are going to school in a mobile home.  This passes, I can just about imagine that every school district will start dreaming about how to get "state" monies to build a new classroom, why not...it won't be reflected in their local taxes!

The state has standards and requirements that MUST be met for both classroom size and buildings - if the classes get bigger - the state formula for k-12 is to adjust for that increase. Building wise - if the buildings don't meet code - the state would be required to fund it's repair. Here as well - there is a formula in place. Now, will you get the 5000 seat football stadium you "want"? Probably not, But that could still be paid for locally with bonding - like it's done already. Now, say you have a town with no school - and the growth of your town now requires a school - the state would pay for it....and if the town wants a ton of extras - they can bond for them via vote of the people.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Allen... Simple minds? I for one dont care if I have to pay that money in another form other than one that holds my property hostage. Us supporters find that to be a rather simple concept. This isn't about not wanting to pay our share. It's about how and y we pay that share.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

Allen Said:
This measure is one of simple minds creating simple ideas.  The bottom line in all of this is that the property owners who don't live in ND won't have to pay a dime for the infrastructure supporting that property if this measure passes.  The number I read one time suggested that about 15% of all property in ND is owned by NR's.  Feel free to give them a free pass to buy up more of ND if you wish, but I am voting no because I don't particularly want an increase in my sales, income, or XXXX taxes to the tune of 15%. 

It takes a pretty good set of blinders to not recognize that the way you cut spending is to sit down and figure out which oxen needs to be gored.  That's the real answer, figure out whose pet projects need to go away first.

Does it really matter if I pay $10k a year in taxes to support ND if it is in the form of property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes?  I guess what a person calls it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

Allen, much of the land owners are former ND citizens with farms being rented via family or neighbors and are producing all kinds of other taxes. This is just another  "red-herring" that the opposition pushes. Even if it were as bad as you're painting it out to be - You're going to vote no because 16% of the people will benefit too? You're going to be selfish enough to vote against the 84% of the current abused property tax paying citizens because someone owns land in ND? There is no legitimate reason to vote against Measure 2 if you take the time and really see what this is about - owning your property free and clear - forever - or until you decide to move - not the government. The state has more than enough to pay for this - and it will only stimulate the economy as well. Those most vocal against it are either misunderstanding the measure - or they are current special interests. The state of PA just announced last week they are moving to eliminate property tax for everyone - for the very same reasons Measure 2 supporters have been proclaiming for years (yes, this has taken years to get this far). Go to www.yesm2.com  and get the info - make you're own decision - but at least get both sides.

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

walleyes n whitetails Said:
Vote No!

If you vote no for only one reason do it for the public schools.  Property tax is where they get most of their money.  If they lose that, grab your popcorn and watch education go down the toilet.

Just Say No!

As an elementary school teacher myself, and with 5 of my 7 kids in school, I appreciate your concern.  However, it is - with all due respect - unfounded.  70% of funding for education currently comes from the state's general fund.  There was not one person, that I know of, that griped when they raised the funding from 35% (if memory serves me correctly) to 70% from the general fund.  There was nobody crying about a "loss of local control" or that education would be in the toilet.  Not to mention the fact that they did it without adding a single day to the legislature.  Why did it not add any days to the legislature?  Because they had a formula in place already that determined the amount of funding schools get.  They simply had to change the numbers in the existing formula to provide the funding.

Measure 2 Constitutionally mandates that they fund K-12 education first.  Not to mention the fact that local school boards will have "sole discretion" over how the funds are spent.  No strings attached from the state legislature.  Now that is true local control!  And ALL the political subdivisions will enjoy the same as they too will have "sole discretion" (i.e. no strings attached) over how their funding is spent. 

I am appalled at the number of people that are buying into the scare tactics that there will be poor education or that we will no longer have police, fire, etc.  This is simply not true.  The measure mandates that all the legal obligations of the political subdivisions be funded.  Do you really think that a legislature, that just witnessed the people of ND vote to abolish property taxes, is going to TRY to tell these same people that they will not fund police, fire, etc.?  NOT ON YOUR LIFE! 

The measure simply changes the resource of where the funds come from.  There are not just three taxes (i.e. income, sales, and property) that provide revenue to this state.  I will double check, but if my memory serves me correctly, there are 12!  We are then scared into believing that we have to "make up the revenue" somewhere else?  This also is not true, as has already been pointed out on this thread.  There is no need for a tax shift.  The truth is that the ultimate tax shift already takes place in the form of property tax exemptions.  One group or person is exempted from paying property tax while everyone else pays more.

As for the out-of-staters issue... that doesn't even factor in for me.  Why?  Because I believe property rights are a fundamental right.  It's not a right that's just for North Dakotans.  It's an individual fundamental right for all.  And certainly, I think it silly to continue to have my home/property held hostage by the property tax simply because I want out-of-staters to be held hostage as well.  No offense, but to me it's really a ridiculous argument. 

The question is sometimes asked, "How many people have lost their homes due to property tax?"  The true answer to this question is, "All of them."  So long as there is a property tax, there is no true home ownership.  It's just that most people continue to pay the rent (i.e. property tax) to ensure they are not evicted.  But the reality is that ALL of us have lost our homes.  Even those that enjoy property tax exemptions are not true home owners.  After all, who granted the exemption?  That's right, the true owner... the government.

The other common argument is "loss of local control".  This too is a myth.  There is no local control.  Pretty much the only two things local about the property taxes are the fact that they are collected locally and that the local sheriff shows up to evict those that do not pay.  Otherwise the state pretty much mandates how these things are done.  Ask any township where taxes were "too low", and you'll find out the state told them to raise them.  In a nutshell, look at the percentages in terms of property valuations across the state (ex. 32% increase on crop land statewide) and I will ask, "How's that 'local control' working out for ya?"

My family has had the unfortunate experience of losing property for inability to pay.  During the early 90's my father became very ill and my mother became the primary bread-winner.  It was a difficult time in our lives, and my Dad lost property during this time period.  Thankfully, our farm was saved on two occasions from going to tax sale.  Two sets of my great-grandparents lost their farms during the depression for inability to pay.  That's how heartless, unfair, unjust, immoral, and un-American the property tax is.

When this comes up for a vote on June 12, 2012, I will do the only common sense thing there is to do.  I will vote "YES" on Measure 2 to abolish the worst tax on the face of the planet, and restore a fundamental right to the people that own property in the state of North Dakota.  In so doing we will also:
   - Give true "local control" to local governments.
   - Give true "local control" to local school boards.
   - Force the legislature to prioritize spending (K-12, local governments, and special interests last).
   - Provide incentive for businesses to come to North Dakota which will provide jobs/incentive for younger NDtans to stay in the state.
   - As non-oil related jobs are produced in ND, this will provide economic stability if/when the oil field ever slows down or busts.
   - Etc.

For Restoring True Property Rights,
Justin

-Justin

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

Tackle Joe Said:

Allen Said:
This measure is one of simple minds creating simple ideas.  The bottom line in all of this is that the property owners who don't live in ND won't have to pay a dime for the infrastructure supporting that property if this measure passes.  The number I read one time suggested that about 15% of all property in ND is owned by NR's.  Feel free to give them a free pass to buy up more of ND if you wish, but I am voting no because I don't particularly want an increase in my sales, income, or XXXX taxes to the tune of 15%. 

It takes a pretty good set of blinders to not recognize that the way you cut spending is to sit down and figure out which oxen needs to be gored.  That's the real answer, figure out whose pet projects need to go away first.

Does it really matter if I pay $10k a year in taxes to support ND if it is in the form of property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes?  I guess what a person calls it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

Allen, much of the land owners are former ND citizens with farms being rented via family or neighbors and are producing all kinds of other taxes. This is just another  "red-herring" that the opposition pushes. Even if it were as bad as you're painting it out to be - You're going to vote no because 16% of the people will benefit too? You're going to be selfish enough to vote against the 84% of the current abused property tax paying citizens because someone owns land in ND? There is no legitimate reason to vote against Measure 2 if you take the time and really see what this is about - owning your property free and clear - forever - or until you decide to move - not the government. The state has more than enough to pay for this - and it will only stimulate the economy as well. Those most vocal against it are either misunderstanding the measure - or they are current special interests. The state of PA just announced last week they are moving to eliminate property tax for everyone - for the very same reasons Measure 2 supporters have been proclaiming for years (yes, this has taken years to get this far). Go to www.yesm2.com  and get the info - make you're own decision - but at least get both sides.

Source?

J

Rooster22's picture
Rooster22
Offline
Joined: 7/27/09

Measure 2 is an ABSOLUTLY HORRIBLE IDEA.  The money to makeup what is lost in property taxes isnt going to just pop out of thin air.  Had they spent any time researching HOW this was going to be made up I may consider it.  But the legislator has a hard enough time doing their job as lt is.  now lets give them this.....theyll be in sesion 563 days a year.....

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Rooster... Did u even read any of the above posts about your unfounded fears?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

I plan on flipping a coin. If it were an election between two individuals, I would choose the one with the biggest head.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

I dont like the idea of some Colorado jackwagon buying up a few sections of ND farm land, and not paying anything to our bottom line, then posting his land and charging to hunt it. All the more incentive for this type of land buy up, we however are going to be there with our game wardens, firemen, sheriffs dept, snow removal, road grading, etc and we can foot that bill for him too.

Lower the tax, or only eliminate it on ND residents, something like that. But to end it wouldnt be prudent.

Neat

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

BringingTheRain Said:
I plan on flipping a coin. If it were an election between two individuals, I would choose the one with the biggest head.

Or the coin flip thing would work too.

Neat

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

johnr Said:
I dont like the idea of some Colorado jackwagon buying up a few sections of ND farm land, and not paying anything to our bottom line, then posting his land and charging to hunt it. All the more incentive for this type of land buy up, we however are going to be there with our game wardens, firemen, sheriffs dept, snow removal, road grading, etc and we can foot that bill for him too.

Lower the tax, or only eliminate it on ND residents, something like that. But to end it wouldnt be prudent.

Really?!  No offense, but WOW!  This is quite the thinking!  You would think that land owned by out-of-staters is overrun by illegalities that would make it necessary for game wardens to constantly spend their time there.  And furthermore, these properties must be on fire all the time.  After all, it appears the fire department spends ALOT of time there.  And snow removal... I was not aware that they removed all the snow from these properties.  I always thought that snow was removed from roads that the GENERAL PUBLIC (primarily NDtans) travel.  Same for the road grading.

Really, people, let's think about this just a tad bit more.  :o)

By the way, in my opinion, if M2 passes it will create a dominoe effect nation-wide and North Dakota will not be the only one without property taxes.  The important thing is that we become the first!!!  :o)

For Restoration of True Property Rights,
Justin

-Justin

greenhead's picture
greenhead
Offline
Joined: 7/19/02

Justin, I am pretty sure John meant  that the non resident landowner will not pay didly for taxes but still benefit  from all the survices that currently come from property taxes such as clean roads, fire department if he has a fire, ambulance if he gets hurt, game warden when he needs one etc. Doesn't surprise me that you would see it differently though.    

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

dakota1977 Said:
Really?!  No offense, but WOW!  This is quite the thinking!  You would think that land owned by out-of-staters is overrun by illegalities that would make it necessary for game wardens to constantly spend their time there.  And furthermore, these properties must be on fire all the time.  After all, it appears the fire department spends ALOT of time there.  And snow removal... I was not aware that they removed all the snow from these properties.  I always thought that snow was removed from roads that the GENERAL PUBLIC (primarily NDtans) travel.  Same for the road grading.

Really, people, let's think about this just a tad bit more.  :o)   

By the way, in my opinion, if M2 passes it will create a dominoe effect nation-wide and North Dakota will not be the only one without property taxes.  The important thing is that we become the first!!!  :o)

For Restoration of True Property Rights,
Justin

Respect your opinion Justin and would ask you to do as you recomend, I highlighted it for you.

This has more disadvantages than advantages.
I give you California as an example of tax ideas gone wrong.

Vote NO on measure 2

Neat

Pages